Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T09:17:09.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nuclear Strategy and Nuclear Winter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Theodore Rueter  and
Thomas Kalil
Theodore Rueter
Affiliation:
Political Science at Middlebury College, Georgetown University, and Smith College
Thomas Kalil
Affiliation:
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University
Get access

Abstract

This essay explores the effect of the “nuclear winter” thesis upon the strategic debate. Both “hawks” and “doves” responded to the nuclear winter thesis in an ideological manner, illustrating the theological nature of the debate on nuclear strategy. Hawks used the nuclear winter data to argue for limited nuclear options, strategic modernization, environmentally sensitive weapons, and strategic defense. Doves used the same information to argue for mutual assured destruction, arms control, and/or global disarmament. Another group of analysts, the “pragmatic Center,” exhibited a more flexible, subtle understanding of the nuclear dilemma.

Type
Review Articles
Information
World Politics , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , July 1991 , pp. 587 - 607
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Turco, Richard P., Toon, Owen B., Ackerman, Thomas R., Pollack, James B., and (TTAPS), CarlSagan, “Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions,” Science 222 (December 23, 1983), 1283–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Thomas, Lewis, “Foreword,” in Ehrlich, Paul R. et al., eds., The Cold and the Dark: The World after Nuclear War (New York: W. W. Norton, 1984), xxi.Google Scholar

3 Herken, Gregg, Counsels of War, expanded ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 331.Google Scholar

4 Ehrlich et al. (fn. 2).

5 Cited in Seitz, Russell, “In from the Cold: ‘Nuclear Winter’ Melts Down,” National Interest 5 (Fall 1986), 7.Google Scholar

6 TTAPS (fn. 1).

7 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Effects of Nuclear War, OTA-NW-89 (Washington, D.C.: OTA, May 1979).Google Scholar

8 World Health Organization, Effects of Nuclear War on Health and Health Services, Publication no. A26–12 (Rome: World Health Organization, 1982).Google Scholar

9 Crutzen, and Birks, , “The Atmosphere after a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon,” Ambio 2, no. 2–3 (1982), 115–25.Google Scholar

10 Reviews of the nuclear winter science are provided in Harwell, Mark A. and Harwell, Christine C., “Updating the Nuclear Winter Debate,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 43 (October 1987), 42–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Robock, Alan, “New Models Confirm Nuclear Winter,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 45 (September 1989), 32–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Ehrlich, et al., “Long-Term Biological Consequences of Nuclear War,” Science 222 (December 23, 1983), 1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12 Harwell, Mark A. and Hutchinson, Thomas C., Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War, vol. 2, Ecological and Agricultural Effects (New York: John Wiley, 1985), 484.Google Scholar

13 Carrier, , “Nuclear Winter: The State of the Science,” Issues in Science and Technology 1 (Winter 1985), 114–17Google Scholar, at 117.

14 U.S. General Accounting Office, Nuclear Winter's Uncertainties Surrounding the hong-Term Effects of Nuclear War (Washington, D.C.: GAO, March 1986).Google Scholar

15 Wohlstetter, , “Between an Unfree World and None: Increasing Our Choices,” Foreign Affairs 63 (Summer 1985), 962–94, at 977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Seitz (fn. 5), 4.

17 Thompson, and Schneider, , “Nuclear Winter Reappraised,” Foreign Affairs 64 (Summer 1985), 163–78.Google Scholar

18 Browne, Malcolm W., “Nuclear Winter Theorists Pull Back,” New York Times, January 23, 1990, pp. CI, C8.Google Scholar

19 Turco, R. P. et al., “Climate and Smoke: An Appraisal of Nuclear Winter,” Science 247 (January 12, 1990), 166–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

20 Powers, , “Nuclear Winter and Nuclear Strategy,” Atlantic Monthly, November 1984, p. 64.Google Scholar

21 Kull, , Minds at War: Nuclear Reality and the Inner Conflicts of Defense Policymakers (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 75.Google Scholar

22 Secretary of Defense Weinberger, Caspar W., “The Potential Effects of Nuclear War on the Climate: A Report to the United States Congress,” Washington, D.C., March 1985, p. 11.Google Scholar

23 Ibid., 12.

24 Ibid., 15.

25 Altfeld, and Cimbala, , “Targeting for Nuclear Winter: A Speculative Essay,” Parameters 15, no. 3 (1985), 8–15, at 11.Google Scholar

26 Wohlstetter, (fn. 15), 990.Google Scholar

27 Gertler, , Some Policy Implications of Nuclear Winter, P-7045 (Washington, D.C., RAND Corporation, January 1985), 10.Google Scholar

28 DeLeon, , “Rethinking Nuclear Conflict: Strategic Implications of a Nuclear Winter,” Defense Analysis 3 (December 1987), 319–36, at 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Kennedy, Robert, “Nuclear Winter, War Prevention, and the Nuclear Deterrent,” in Sederberg, 160–61.Google Scholar It should be noted that these policy prescriptions have not been adopted by the Pentagon, which still seeks large warheads such as the Mx, and whose targeting plans still call for attacking cities. See Woodruff, Lawrence W., “Nuclear Force Modernization Efforts,” Defense Issues, March 11, 1988, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar

30 Weinberger, (fn. 22), 11.Google Scholar

31 Gray, , “The Nuclear Winter Thesis and the U.S. Strategic Policy,” Washington Quarterly 8 (Summer 1985), 85–96, at 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Reule, Fred J., Nuclear Winter: Asymmetrical Problems and Unilateral Solutions, Airpower Research Institute, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, Report no. US-ARI-CP-86–1, September 1986, p. 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Wohlstetter, (fn. 15), 972.Google Scholar

34 Altfeld, and Cimbala, (fn. 25), 13.Google Scholar

35 Romero, , Nuclear Winter: Implications for U.S. and Soviet Strategy, P-7009 (Washington, D.C.: RAND Corporation, August 1984), 18.Google Scholar

36 “Transcript of Interview with President on a Range of Issues,” New York Times, February 12, 1985, p. A10.

37 Weinberger, (fn. 22), 13.Google Scholar

38 Ball, Desmond, Can Nuclear War Be Controlled? Adelphi Paper no. 169 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981).Google Scholar

39 Bacon, R. F., U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Hearing, The Climatic, Biological, and Strategic Effects of Nuclear War, September 22, 1984, p. 231.Google Scholar

40 Palomar Corporation (Washington, D.C.), “Implications of the ‘Nuclear Winter’ Thesis” (Prepared for the Defense Nuclear Agency, Contract #001–84-C-0257, June 25, 1985), 22–23.Google Scholar

41 Gayler, Admiral Noel, U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Hearing, The Consequences of Nuclear War, July 11 and 12, 1984, p. 6.Google Scholar

42 Simon, , “Mutual Deterrence or Nuclear Suicide,” Science 223 (February 24, 1984), 775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

43 Quester, , “Nuclear Winter: Bad News, No News, or Good News?” in Kelleher, Catherine Mc-Ardle, Kerr, Frank J., and Quester, George H., eds., Nuclear Deterrence: New Risks, New Opportunities (Washington, D.C.: Pergamon-Brassey's, 1986), 78–79, 80.Google Scholar

44 Horowitz, and Lieber, , “Nuclear Winter and the Future of Deterrence,” Washington Quarterly 8 (Summer 1985), 59–70, at 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Carl Sagan, U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Hearing, Nuclear Winter and Its Implications, October 2 and 3, 1985, p. 138.Google Scholar

46 Postol, Theodore (fn. 39), 104, 101.Google Scholar

47 Kahn, Herman, On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios (reprint, Westport, Conn.: Green wood Press, 1986).Google Scholar

48 Bundy, McGeorge et al., “Nuclear Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance,” Foreign Affairs 60 (Spring 1982), 753–68, at 768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 Weissbroud, , “Are Nuclear Weapons Obsolete?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 40 (August-September 1984), 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 Caldicott, , Missile Envy (New York: Bantam Books, 1984), 307.Google Scholar

51 Simon, (fn. 42), 775.Google Scholar

52 Budyko, Michael I., Golitsyn, Georgia S., Izrael, Yuri A., Global Climatic Catastrophes, trans. Yanuta, V. G. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988), 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 Greene, Owen, Percival, Ian, and Ridge, Irene, Nuclear Winter: The Evidence and the Risks (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985), 19.Google Scholar

54 The concept of a doomsday machine originated with Kahn, Herman, On Thermonuclear War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960).Google Scholar

55 Romero, (fn. 35), 13, 16.Google Scholar Romero points out that Soviet war planners would have a more difficult time employing “dirty bombs” because of American urban sprawl—a “suburb gap.”

56 Sagan and Turco also state that if nuclear winter research indicates the “threshold” at about one hundred weapons each, “nuclear winter would then suggest that we move quickly from minimum sufficiency to abolition” (p. 416).

57 Snow, Donald M., “Strategic Uncertainty and the Nuclear Winter: Implications for Policy,” in Viotti, Paul, ed., Conflict and Arms Control: An Uncertain Agenda (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1986), 63.Google Scholar

58 Bundy, McGeorge, “The Bishops and the Bomb,” New York Review of Books, June 16, 1983.Google Scholar

59 Gaddis, John Lewis, “The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System,” International Security 10 (Spring 1986), 99–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60 Jack Snyder divides the debate over the future of Europe into three views: “liberal ‘end of history’ optimism,” “Hobbesian pessimism,” and “neo-liberal institutionalism”; Snyder, , “Averting Anarchy in the New Europe,” International Security 14 (Spring 1990), 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 Prominent proponents of liberal optimism include Fukuyama, Francis, “The End of History?” National Interest 16 (Summer 1989), 3–18Google Scholar; Doyle, Michael, “Liberalism and World Politics,” American Political Science Review 80 (December 1986), 1151–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Kant, Liberal Fallacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 1,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Summer 1983), 2205–35; idem, “Kant, Liberal Fallacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part 11,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Fall 1983), 323–53; Mueller, John, Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War (New York: Basic Books, 1989)Google Scholar; Ray, James Lee, “The Abolition of Slavery and the End of International War,” International Organization 43 (Summer 1989), 405–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bolt, Sissela, A Strategy for Peace: Human Values and the Threat of War (New York: Pantheon Books, 1989).Google Scholar Prominent critics of this view include Mearsheimer, John J., “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War,” International Security 15 (Summer 1990), 5–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War,” Athntic Monthly, August 1990, pp. 35–37, 40–42, 44–47, 50; Huntington, Samuel P., “No Exit: The Errors of Endism,” National Interest 17 (Fall 1989), 3–11Google Scholar; Wieseltier, Leon, “Spoilers at the Party,” National Interest 17 (Fall 1989), 12–16Google Scholar; and Gardner, Richard N., “The Comeback of Liberal Internationalism,” Washington Quarterly 13 (Summer 1990), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62 Cheney stated that despite “Gorbachev's stated commitment to a defensive military doctrine, the Soviet Union continues upgrading its forces and improving their capabilities”; U.S. Department of Defense, Soviet Military Power: An Assessment of the Threat, 1988 (Wash ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1988)Google Scholar, preface, no page.

63 Gray, , War, Peace, and Victory: Strategy and Statecraft for the Next Century (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), 14Google Scholar: “For the broad purposes of this work on strategy, it really does not matter who is up or down in Moscow on the date of publication.”

64 Prominent literature on the emerging security environment includes Guertner, Gary L., Deterrence and Defense in a Post-Nuclear World (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; George, James L., The New Nuclear Rules: Strategy and Arms Control after INF and START (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Guertner, Gary L., “Strategic Arms after Reagan: The Unfinished Agenda,” SAIS Review 10 (Winter-Spring 1990), 87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Owens, Mackubin Thomas, “Force Planning in an Era of Uncertainty,” Strategic Review 18 (Spring 1990), 9–22Google Scholar; Etzold, Thomas H., “The Strategic Environment of the Twenty-first Century: Alternative Futures of Strategic Planners,” Strategic Review 18 (Spring 1990), 23–31Google Scholar; and Ikle, Fred Charles and Wohlstetter, Albert, Discriminate Deterrence: Report of the Commission on Integrated hong-Term Strategy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense, 1988).Google Scholar

65 Tsipis, , “The Uncommon Ground of Security Debate,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 43 (July-August 1987), 10–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66 Nye, , Allison, , and Carnesale, , “Analytical Conclusions: Hawks, Doves, and Owls,” in Allison, , Carnesale, , and Nye, , eds., Hawks, Doves and OwL: An Agenda for Avoiding Nuclear War (New York: W. W. Norton, 1985), 230–42.Google Scholar

67 Nye, , Nuclear Ethics (New York: Free Press, 1986), 108–13.Google Scholar See a'so idem “Nuclear Winter and Policy Choices,” Survival 28 (March-April 1986), 119–27.

68 Drew, Dennis M., Nuclear Winter and National Security: Implications for Future Policy, Airpower Research Institute, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, Report no. AU-ARI-CP-86–1, July 1986.Google Scholar Desmond Ball argued that the “uncertainty” scenario was the most likely outcome; see Ball, , “Toward a Critique of Strategic Nuclear Targeting,” in Ball, Desmond and Richelsen, Jeffrey, eds., Strategic Nuclear Targeting (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986), 32.Google Scholar

69 Lynch cites Ravenal, Earl, Strategic Disengagement and World Peace (San Francisco: CATO Institute, 1979), 33–39.Google Scholar

70 Indeed, several recent, notable books on nuclear strategy and defense policy fail to address the issue of nuclear winter at all. See Jervis, Robert, The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Kruzel, Joseph S., ed., American Defense Annual, 1989–1990 (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1989)Google Scholar; Nolan, Janne E., Guardians of the Arsenal: The Politics of Nuclear Strategy (New York: Basic Books, 1989)Google Scholar; Sagan, Scott D., Moving Targets: Nuclear Strategy and National Security (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; and Weinberger, Caspar W., Fighting for Peace: Seven Critical Years in the Pentagon (New York: Warner Books, 1990).Google Scholar

71 Jervis, , Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 143.Google Scholar

72 Kull, (fn. 21), 304Google Scholar; emphasis in original.

73 Jervis, , “Introduction: Approach and Assumptions,” in Jervis, Robert, Le-bow, Richard Ned, and Stein, Janice Gross, eds., Psychology and Deterrence (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), 1Google Scholar; emphasis in original.

74 Gray, (fn.63), 93.Google Scholar

75 Gray notes four assumptions that “make up the bedrock of what must pass for a body of knowledge”: the prenuclear world is beyond retrieval; nuclear weapons must be fitted into national or coalition military strategy; investments in command and control improvements are worthwhile; and “the nuclear arsenals of the superpowers cannot be regarded as instruments of military decision”; Gray (fn. 63), 311–13.

76 Ibid., 315.